August 28, 2010

The theories are smart, but the columnist, Michael Tomasky, has laughable ideas about what Obama should have done:

Send the president out to rural white areas to talk about his national broadband policy....

White areas... This from a British paper, but still, Tomasky is purporting to have the line on how America works. He imagines the man in the "white area" saying:

"Well, Martha..."

... hicks have wives named Martha...

"... they say he's a socialist, but I don't know, if he's out here in our little town in central Nebraska where we voted 80% McCain and he's promoting rural internet, that doesn't seem too socialist to me."

What?! Is that a socialist joke? The rubes say they hate something with the label "socialist," but when you given them something they like they don't even understand how the label applies (because they really don't hate socialism at all, they're just dumb) — is that a socialist joke?

And, out here in my little city in the middle of the midwest, I think when a man writes dialogue like that, I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.

91 comments:

The real answer is that he didn't run that brilliant of a campaign. It only seems that way because we all had been so geared up against the idea of Hillary Clinton that we completely overestimated her (and she ran a fairly poor campaign to boot); we were so worn down on Bush hatred that the conservatives put up a shoddy fight to say the least, and everyone was wowed by the combination of someone who made them feel good to listen to and the white guilt relief (false, as it turned out) of voting for a black man. Obama just happened to seize on a perfect storm. It had nothing at all to do with his skills in campaigning.

Why not? What exact position did they think they were getting into? Where had they been for the last eight years, or all of American political history for that matter? You put yourself in high political office, and people are going to disagree with you. Politics ain't beanbag. I'm constantly shocked at the people who seem to expect that it will be.

Which all goes back to the overreaching idea that these folks, the president included, are just not that bright.

I am troubled by the premise. The conclusion does not wash with me. The Obama/Biden Administration has done everything right. But, the world is not perfect. Things are in flux. There are many variables.

Bottom line: There are no problems. What does not work is natural. Things are fixed right-away.

GOP is trying to find water in desert. GOP sees a mirage and expect reality. Well, dream on.

Instead of trying to find fault with a perfect administration (in last so many years), why not focus on looking within. Do you have leaders for tomorrow? Are you preparing people (say like minor leagues in Baseball)? Do you have possibilities for 2010 or 2012? (No: You do not.).

So, why not focus on 2016? How you ask (to a consultant = me)? Simple. Give many options to Gov. Daniels or Christie or Rep. Ryan and so on. Every Sunday, they should be on TV. Focus on them. Forget Palin (flash in the pan, can you imagine her in Oval Office - heart attack, right?), Huckabee, Romney, etc.

Good luck - you will need it for 2016. 2010 and 2012 are already washed up for you.

I suppose this is the chant to be repeated whilst applying the chains of regulation, extracting any profits from said innovation through massive new taxes, and making the speeches excoriating business success.

He is doing his job and you have a few million idiots following a few dozen talk show hosts attempting to lead the country off a cliff.

the got him elected and he will do a good job if allowed to do it. do you remember the old GOP phrase "up or down vote"? Now there are no senate up or downs...just averting the delays put up by the roadblock rightwing. they offer nothing. obama at least offers something if he is given a chance rather than constant partisan obstruction of the worst sort.

no president has ever had to endure what the republican nitwits are tossing up.

He doesn't stop to look at what the "brilliance" was or what's given rise to the problems since O and the Dems took over. None of the theories sound all that smart to me.

During the campaign O was all things to all people -- "hope and change" was a fill-in-the-blank exercise, and people did. O was young, attractive, different; McCain was the opposite on all scores -- and, to boot, the old guy who didn't have a clue about domestic stuff, especially the meltdown in the financial markets. O played all of that extremely well. The post-partisan, post-racial thing sounded good in the abstract too. That was the "brilliance."

Governing is the opposite of all-things-to-all-people. Those who felt misled -- many, and for them, O turned out to be all false hope and bad change -- had a quick change of heart as it became clear that "post-partisan" meant everyone has to sign up for uber-lefty policies. Post-racial turned out to mean that anyone who disagreed was a bigot and probably a racist. And to top it off, O had no interest in the problems that the voters cared about, and spent all his time pursuing policies that made those problems worse, all while telling the world that pre-O America was the problem, not the solution.

The brilliance of the campaign was O's ability to sell the voters on feel-good vacuousness. The problems in governing arose when the voters saw what 'hope and change' meant.

The coastal "elites" have to justify their miserable, congested, overpriced, overstressed, coastal existences somehow. They do this by persuading themselves they live superior lifestyles to those in the middle of the country -- you know, where people can afford houses, cars, boats, leisure time, etc. It's just a little bit sad.

You do realize that opposition to the Healthcare bill was bipartisan right? You do realize that Republicans had no power to oppose Obama for one full year right? You do realize that Democrats have always had the power to pass anything they want right?

There was never any reason to believe being a good campaigner = being good at governing. That was a theory made up to cover for the fact that Obama had been in charge of almost nothing in his entire life.

From the link:Send the president out to rural schools in all-white areas to talk about his education policy. Which, by the way, is a success so far.

By what measure, I wonder. I actually have to admit I know precious little about his education policy, except for the make-work "Race for the Top" contest currently in progress.

"no president has ever had to endure what the republican nitwits are tossing up."

Oh my gosh yes, Reagan and Bush and Clinton were adored by everyone! They were never criticized! Poor President Obama! Everyone needs to shut up and happily pay the much higher taxes which must be levied so social justice may be attained.

The "simulus": brilliant! Government control of healthcare: brilliant! Huge loans to auto companies: brilliant! How can we not properly appreciate how lucky we have been? Just think how wonderful this country would be if we could only have Obama forever? Term limits-Bah!

2 (formerly 6). Maybe they didn't really run such a great campaign and were overrated from the start.

3 (formerly 1). Campaigns are easier than governing. Not to be discounted. Campaigns are hard, but governing is harder. You're actually responsible for stuff, and that stuff sticks to you more. Takes a while to figure that out. (if they thought this, and I suspect it is true, it is a subset of issues 1 and 2)

4 (formerly 2). They were overwhelmed by events. They didn't understand quite how bad things were going to be (this is an inane, they ran on how bad things were and how they were going to fix them). Actual conditions, I mean: the economy, Afghanistan, unexpected things like the oil spill.

5 (formerly 6). It's about personnel. David Plouffe was on the campaign but isn't in the White House. Rahm Emanuel is, but wasn't on the campaign. And there are other personnel differences. Maybe these are key. (Duh)

6 (formerly 3). They didn't expect the partisan onslaught. (Dumbass there is alwyas partisan onslaught [think what Dems and lefties did to Bush, what Pubs and conservatives did to Clinton, etc.], that is a lame excuse.)

Generally agree with Fred, although I'd reverse 6 (Maybe they didn't really run such a great campaign and were overrated from the start.) and 5 (It's Obama himself.). 1 (Campaigns are easier than governing.) is in the right place, although, the more I think about it, the more it seems to rank with the rest, which are just excuses for the mess in which The Zero (and the country) finds itself and how he/we got there.

GMay, you are right in the media being number 7.

PS Limeys trying to put themselves in the place of average Americans is almost as lame as most British actors trying to sound like working class Americans.

Please, American Politico, tell us what the Obama/Biden so called administration have done right?

Everything they have done has turned out badly. All they can do is keep blaming their predecessors- even for the horrendous mistakes and actions they have taken. This will probably go down as the worst administration in modern history- after Carter. Actually, that abject failure peanut farmer is starting to look pretty good compared to the tyro.

They have driven the economy over the cliff and left us with a massive debt that now threatens our national security.

Worse, they have undermined American exceptionalism in an attempt to turn us into a second class country. Their idea of patriotism is paying more taxes for nothing and all of us suffering equally.

They have done nothing right and everything wrong- by design. BTW, they are not alone. Nancy Pelosi and the party share most of the blame. Obama is a tyro and Biden is the dumbest man in America.

Obama is nothing more than a puppet- Nancy Pelosi's puppet. When she calls he addresses her as Madam President. All the Democrats have done is try to destroy the American Free Enterprise System.

Me, too. What I don't get is: is this fun for him/her? I mean, what's the point? I post and read here because it is fun, challenging, interesting, and gets me to think about the issues, often in new ways. American P is obviously not doing any of that. What's the deal?

lyssa lovely is right. He never ran a brilliant campaign. He got an enormpous amount of goodwill because he was black, and he got almost no serious challenges from the "press" (I use the term loosely) because he was black.

He won because he was an affirmative action candidate. And he is failing because he was an affirmative action cndidate.

Also, because he really does have contempt for most of the people he is sworn to serve.

You sarcasmometer must not be working if it didn't detect Politico's actual meaning. Saying O runs a "perfect administration" makes it pretty obvious it's a somewhat inept sendup of lefty whistling past the graveyard.

1. It's Obama himself. He hasn't demonstrated exceptional intelligence and his instincts are abysmal. He didn't get himself to where he is.

2. Maybe they didn't really run such a great campaign and were overrated from the start. See earlier comments about a fawning and sycophantic media.

3. It's about personnel. The office requires the best advisors. His were/are hopelessly leftist and his most capable and experienced (Rahmbo) seems to get shoved to the side. Fewer ideologues would have probably led to better input for better decisions. Which leads to:

4. They were overwhelmed by events. When you and your legions of zombies imagine you with superpowers, you're doomed to fail.

5. Campaigns are easier than governing. Which is why Obama and his team are in perpetual campaign mode. He just didn't sell his agenda right, didn't talk about it enough, the stupid electorate just doesn't understand him yet.

6. They didn't expect the partisan onslaught. Agree with Fred here - this is lame, lame, lame. Obama still hasn't had to put up with what Bush, or even Clinton endured. And Obama has known nothing but Democratic majorities and supermajorities. This one is laughable.

"How could a bunch of people who ran such a brilliant campaign be doing such a lousy job at the politics of governing?"

Reminds me of the famous NYT headline "prison population growing despite decline in crime." (Not in the balance of the two phrases--you can fix the NYT headline by changing "despite" to "because" while the same is not true of this headline--but in the cluelessness of the author, the mistaken assumption of an incongruity in the two "facts."

What has campaigning to do with governing? Why would someone think that the ability to run a campaign implies an ability to govern?

(I agree with some above posters that Obama's "brilliant campaign" was not particularly brilliant, despite the press's constant insistence that it was, just as Obama has shown no unusual personal intelligence despite the press's insistence that he is very intelligent.)

The author, like most of the Lame Media, really believes Obama is smart, very smart, too smart for us to really understand him.

That is their downfall, they cannot be objective, because it would force them to see how complicit they were in allowing such a weak leader to have been elected. He said all the right things and was not the Al Sharpton type, who they like but not too close.

Rush Limbaugh has nailed the reason why he is struggling. Obama never had to 'do' anything, like run a business, or make payroll. He was coddled through out his life, because like this author, they all believed he was so smart.

He is a scammer, who is incapable of delivering leadership, because it requires work and that is beneath Obama. He can't be bothered to really do something. That is why he is always surrounded by evil straw men. They provide cover for his failures and sustenance to his leftist views.

I never thought I would see a more incapable President than Jimmy Carter, but Obama will eclipse him by light years. If the Democrats don't see this yet, they will in November, and I would estimate you will see overturned vetos occurring as the Party apparachiks try to bail out their leaking boat before it goes down.

Lame Duck is about to be served, unfortunately, on the backs of the U.S. Citizens, many of whom were duped by a leftist media who could not nor would not call out the obvious weaknesses of Barack Obama in the campaign. It will take us lot of time and effort to overcome what he has wrought upon our country. Well now those chickens have come home to roost for the Left and the Democrats, holding hands as they go over the cliff.

I'll go with 6 - Maybe they didn't really run such a great campaign and were overrated from the start. with 1 - Campaigns are easier than governing. close behind. These are a bunch of guys mostly good at conning enough people to get what they want.

Tomasky also says: Send the president out to rural schools in all-white areas to talk about his education policy. Which, by the way, is a success so far.

What education policy? Little early to be calling any of what it may be a success. There hasn't been nearly enough time to measure any possible success.

I am sorry to disagree with you. However, they certainly "won". When do you think the Republicans will get sixty votes in the Senate AND be willing to do what it will take to 1. repeal Obamacare2. reduce the national debt3. remove a zillion pages of knot-headed regulations.

I'd love to get Arne Duncan, the Education Secetary, to tell me how much of that $2,000 actually gets spent in the classroom.

Currently, they have State DoEs filling out 1000's of pages of paperwork in an attempt to qualify as one of the few states who will get their citizens' tax dollars back to enable them to "Race to the Top", whatever that means.

It's make-work. Make-work that costs money that could be going to the classrooms.

lyssa lovely is right. He never ran a brilliant campaign. He got an enormpous amount of goodwill because he was black, and he got almost no serious challenges from the "press" (I use the term loosely) because he was black.

Don't forget that, 2 weeks into the campaign, the only opponent The Zero had was Miss Sarah.

Send the president out to rural schools in all-white areas to talk about his education policy. Which, by the way, is a success so far. Send the president out to rural white areas to talk about his national broadband policy. Have the president....

It's all about talking, isn't it? Everything's fine. We just need a differents spin, don't we?

Lefties can't govern because they are divorced from reality. Lefties are addicted to straw men because they are divorced from reality.

Ahmadinejad doesn't really mean it when he speaks of destroying Israel. Franklin Graham didn't mean it when he said Obama had renounced Islam and accepted Jesus. Fannie, Freddie and the Dems had nothing to do with the collapse of the economy. It was all about Bush and deregulation. The Iraq war cost three trillion dollars. Right?

And the Obama administration isn't really an extension of Chicago cronyism, right? Jerrod, Axelrod and Emanuel are highly qualified to run the country. They just happen to be from the Chicago machine. Obama's GM/Chrysler bailout just happened to benefit labor unions disproportionately. His "successful" education policies just happened to benefit teacher's unions and the minions of academe many of whom are the intellectual progeny of Marcusian socialism.

Lunacy, dishonesty and cronyism. Yep. There you have it. The keys to Obama's successes, or failures, depending on your point of view.

And, out here in my little city in the middle of the midwest, I think when a man writes dialogue like that, I have a hard time taking anything he says seriously.

Aren't you in Madison, Wisconsin? While that technically might be a small city in the Midwest, college towns like that culturally have more in common with big urban centers than with the countryside. Like a professor of mine used to say, every Texas has its Austin.

Also, according to his bio on Wikipedia, Tomasky grew up in West Virginia and went to undergrad there. He isn't British and is probably fairly well-acquainted with rural areas.

Rush Limbaugh has nailed the reason why he is struggling. Obama never had to 'do' anything, like run a business, or make payroll. He was coddled through out his life, because like this author, they all believed he was so smart.

Bingo. It's too bad that there can't be a prerequisite of having to spend time in the productive class before working in any aspect of government, be it a hired or elected position. I realize that people would cry "discrimination" at every opportunity, but it sure would get us some better public "servants."

Obama did a crappy job staffing his administration. He doesn't have very good instincts either, but normally presidents have a group of people around them to keep them from making dumb mistakes. He seems to be surrounded by people that think he hung the moon.

Heck they let Reid and Pelosi write the health bill. And then they let Dodd write the finance bill.

So as the economy continues to tank he doesn't have anyone around to tell him to stop. Stop proposing thousand page regulatory bills that scare the crap out of business people. Stop paralyzing businesses with thousand page health care bills.

Just shut up. Don't even let the word "tax" pass your lips until this economy is roaring again.

Oh, and hiring 15,000 new IRS agents doesn't make people feel confident that it's OK to buy, sell or behave normally.

I didn't think he would make these mistakes, though he is certainly not of my political stripe. But the way things are going it doesn't look to me like they'll be able to recover. There are apparently no adults present.

There is no way on the face of this earth this guy would be POTUS if he were white. None. The guilt crowd was so thrilled he could make a subject and verb agree that they ignored his razor thin resume, ignored his associations, and became weak kneed at his empty rhetoric. He is neither particularly smart, particularly talented or even especially smooth. He is an academic, peter principled to the heights and peeved that people now call his brilliance into question.

Sad actually. You see it around if you look. Perfectly nice black kids who have been coddled through school, given As when Cs would have better, and are shocked when they arrive at the University and find they are barely cutting it. What other conclusion than racism can they give to their failure.

Lyssa is dead on; Obama actually ran a really crappy campaign. The fawning press made it seem much more effective than it really was. Very early in his campaign, Obama was extremely arrogant and an incoherent windbag. Any other candidate would have been rightly slaughtered by the press, but they praised him to no end!

It was obvious from day one that people saw in Obama what they wanted to see and there was a complete disconnect with anything he said. I heard people say that they liked Obama because, and then say something exactly the opposite of what Obama himself had just said.

On top of all this, Obama is a genuinely and amazingly dumb guy. He's like Chauncy the Gardener--he repeatedly says idiotic things and liberals swoon.

I'm inclined to go with #1 - governing is harder than a campaign - which is really just a restatement of the experience issue.

An aside which seems especially obvious with a UK journalist - what the heck have most journalists ever done with their lives to incline people to listen to them when it comes to how to run a country?

They've studied, observed, written books, pontificated, but what have they ever done that qualifies them? Why would anyone take their opinion, well-stated or not, seriously? What are we thinking? We know politicians are thinking about poll numbers and coverage, but what are we thinking?

I think of this sometimes when I'm reading Andrew "it seems to me" Sullivan. I think Andy's a bright guy etc, but what have you ever done but talk, write, and go to school? When have you ever implemented anything and seen the results and how it works in the real world?

This is especially relevant with Obama since he's the closest thing to a political journalist we've ever had in the White House. (There are tons of non-practicing, lecturing attorneys among their ranks as well.)

Don't forget that, 2 weeks into the campaign, the only opponent The Zero had was Miss Sarah.

What the hell are you talking about? Obama's official campaign started in February 2007, long before Palin showed up. By the time she did, the press had turned on McCain in response to him turning on them. (Without a supportive press, McCain wouldn't have won the Republican nomination and when he appeared ungrateful, they got pissed.)

Tomasky’s number one is my number one, too. Campaigning is much easier. Campaigning, one can lie through one’s teeth, promise “no tax increases for anyone earning less than $250,000.”Now that we’ve got to the governing part comes the realization that, when the tax cuts expire, our first 17k or so of taxable income will be subject to a 15% rate, not 10%. Everyone who pays income tax will be affected, of course, but those earning the least will be affected the most on a percentage basis. Lower income folks think it’s fine-and-dandy when Reginald Van Bigbuck’s tax rate goes up from 39 to 41 percent (or whatever). But, if Joe Lunchbucket is going to see a 50% (50%!!!) hike….well, I think a lot of the middle-class and lower-middle are feeling like they were swindled by a slick-talking grifter.

My number two—overwhelmed by events. But the “events” are those of their own making. They’ve lined up, in most instances, 180 degrees to the wrong side of public opinion—KSM, Arizona, health care, GZM, etc. To say nothing of tax hikes for all and almost-quadrupling the yearly deficit. (The problem doesn’t lie in the “politics” of governing, by which phrase I gather Tomasky thinks the presentation of the policies is lacking—that more and fancier bows and wrapping paper on the package will convince us of the wonderfulness of its contents. Wrong.)

The other four, I think, are irrelevant and tied for last. Over-rated. We thought they would be good at “the politics of governing” because the campaign was so masterful—but it wasn’t really that great of a campaign, just better than Clinton’s or McCain’s. This argument is just silly. He’s talking again about the PR aspect. He’s begging the question, it seems to me, assuming the essential virtue of the policies and bemoaning that they haven’t been sold effectively. Nonsense.

Obama himself. Not sure what he’s trying to say here, but I think the man’s personal qualities are pretty much beside the point. Look at the 1972 election results. I don’t remember anyone voting for or against Nixon based on his social skills or lack of them.

Personnel. WTF? Way out in left field. Not personnel—POLICIES!

Didn’t expect partisan onslaught. Babes in the woods. Virtuous and naïve, defenseless against scurrilous Rethuglican lies and misrepresentation. And the racism, don’t forget the racism. More twaddle.

Joe, I would guess that edutcher meant that Ms. Palin was the only person who was actually willing to act like an opponent towards him. It makes sense that way. (I was scratching my head at first about it, too.)

If you paid attention to politics in the 1960s -- which either means you are old or you were way too interested in politics for a child, both of which apply to me -- you might remember John Lindsay, one of the most awful mayors New York has ever seen, the biggest contributor to the city's fiscal collapse in 1975, a few years after he left office. Before his profound crappiness was understood however, Obama-like hopes attached to him. The columnist Murray Kempton wrote of Lindsay, "he is fresh and everyone else is tired." That became his campaign slogan. It meant nothing. It meant, probably, that he was a scion of a wealthy family who had access to exfoliants, Swedish masseuses, more salads, etc.

I think in 2008, Obama looked fresh and everyone else looked tired. And that was pretty much it. The Republicans were beaten two years earlier and had not made an inch of progress toward a comeback on any level. They were still the same corrupt bunch of boodlers the voters had sent packing in 2006, except there were fewer of them and they were two years older. The Clintonistas around Hillary also looked tired, starting with the erstwhile First Couple themselves. Edwards was a spent force, too. Most people didn't know he had this complicated private life, but you could tell there was something off about him. Watching clips from the 2008 Democratic debates, it's clear these people had nothing interesting or even serious to say.

In that miasma, a scenario of multiple collapsing dynasties, Obama seemed "fresh, not tired." And that's why he won, and it's the only reason he won. But they liked to think, and the press liked to think, it was because Obama was "transformational." You would have to avoid listening to his actual words or reading his campaign materials in order to continue thinking that, but they brought that high level of self-regard with them into the WH. It did not serve them well.

I'm with Redhead above: O didn't run a brilliant campaign as much as Hillary ran an awful one. O also played the primary system far better than H by leveraging his connections to ACORN and other activist orgs to get his people voting in caucus primaries. Obama didn't do so well in states with general election primaries - he won the nomination with caucuses. Hillary didn't pay attention to the generally small caucus states, ignoring the fact that they are also generally very early and produce momentum. I suppose this could be argued as "running a good campaign", but I'd say that this was more taking advantage of Hillary's sense of entitlement to the Dem nomination and lack of nuts & bolts campaign work on the part of her team.

Once that was done, he faced the not-so-formidable McCain in the worst climate for Republicans since Nixon resigned. The Dems could have nominated a ham sandwich and it would have won.

The mainstream press has always covered up for him and refused to really go after his record. His many, many missteps were glossed over and became one day wonders.His racists statements about "typical white people" and his socialist yearnings about "redistributing the wealth so it will be fair" were barely reported and then went down the rabbit hole.

Now that he can not just vote "present" and has to come up with some answers, he is just fucked.

By the way, Michael Bloomberg is John Lindsey with a check book to buy his way out of trouble. The only reason he is successful is that he pays his way out of problems by nice checks to the various interest groups who might oppose him.

The glimpses of economic wisdom: "spread the wealth", it's ok to raise a tax even if revenue declines because of "fairness", "if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them";

courting of the opposition - "likable...enough", playing "Addicted to Love" for Bill's convention speech;

courting of the public - "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them";

the post-racial appeal of a 20-year member of Jeremiah Wright's church, who he "can no more disown..than I can disown the black community" or "my white grandmother" (a "typical white person" in her own right);

You do realize that opposition to the Healthcare bill was bipartisan right? You do realize that Republicans had no power to oppose Obama for one full year right? You do realize that Democrats have always had the power to pass anything they want right?"

nope.nope. they have the filibuster at the highest pace and frequency in the history of the congress. the 106th set a record (clinton's last 2 years) toped by the 110th (when the dems got the majority back) now topped by the 11th.nope.

So, I went to the Glenn Beck rally. What a bore and what a disappointment. America is fine, thank you. I want to take America "forward" not "backward".

GOP = Living in the past.

N.B.: The lovely person is not happy with my advice. Well, I am a generous person. I want to help GOP so that they do not waste their time, money, and energy. Instead, they help themselves. I am a kind person.

Obama is the liberal's Great Black Hope. And like the many Great White Hopes in boxing, Obama has no chance of winning.

Well, he obviously won in 2008, so that shows he has had more than a chance of winning in the past. And as far as 2012 goes, that's still a long way away and the GOP bench isn't looking that great right now.

Whatever gave you the thought he would not make these mistakes. He surel had not history of running things that would show he knew what he was doing. In fact the results of the Annenberg Challenge and the Chicago School System should have told you that he WOULD make these mistakes since he made them then over and over without learning a thing. His stints in the Illinois legislature and the Senate surely gave no hint that he had a clue. He did all he could to keep from showing anything at all during the campaign. What other result would a logical, reasonably intelligent person reach about his capabilities.

(The Crypto Jew)I go with Obama wasn't as "smart" as everyone thought, governing IS harder than campaigning (It's one thing to say what you would do IF you were POTUS, quite another to do it).

Obama is not STUPID, stoopit people aren't accepted into the Ivy League. Instead, I'd argue that he's like many High School/College athletes who move to the next level. After being a star at one level, they get lazy, not challenged, not pushed, they come to expect that their innate talents will carry them thru. Usually D-I or the NBA knocks that out of them pretty quickly or they flounder.

So too Obama, I think he's been told he's "special" for so long he believes it. Only at his level EVERYONE is "special." Having not really been pushed, he's floundering. Will he right himself in the 2010-12 time frame, mayhap. He's going to have to rid himself of some of his current staff though

Sorry but the Dems had 60 senators voting with them until Byrd died and then 60 again as soon as his replacement was named. That was enough to call cloture on any filibuster. No need to do otherwise. And from 1994-2000 and from 2003-2007 was the Republican majority so the Dems were the ones filibustering then, not the Republicans.

They ran a kick-ass campaign...stayed on message, finessed/bullied the caucus states, stayed cool under fire, charmed the talk-show circuit, metrosexualed the hell out of his image, and remained a blank slate for people to draw their own aspirations upon.

My, my, this thread looks like a giant echo chamber. You people need to get out. There is enormous affection for this Administration. You look at the mirror and think all voters think like you (i.e., there is something wrong with the President and Vice President). Well, listen to me now, and believe me later. There is total support. The GOP support is all soft (if at all). When the Air Force One makes a stop, even GOP soft-voters will say good bye to GOP. It is over. Take a deep breathe and work towards 2016.

campaigning is about popularity for the most part. It is one dimensional and for so large a task an unusually focused enterprise. Governing is multi faceted and multi focal. It is not about popularity it is about effectiveness. They are not the same. We are seeing a man with little to no executive experience prior to running for president. He himself offered his campaign as evidence of his executive bona fides. But it wasn't enough. He is in over his head and so are Axelrod and Emmanuel.

The socialists just tried this in Australia. Ms. Gilliard promised broadband to rural folks and some telecom union folk (of all people) commented in the press that the average bill would be several thousand dollars per installation. Which was news to the electorate who must have thought (free) storks delivered bits. They may actually not be as as accepting as U.S. citizens to the notion there is an infinite supply of other peoples' (and their childrens' children's) money.

Time to be thankful for small miracles.

Also, for those tradesfolk out of work for months (and likely waiting in a long union queue) and reading Ann's blog, Australian companies (esp. mining and energy) are hiring. And paying well. Round trip tickets to Perth can be found under $1000. And a tourist-work visa is about $200.

They're doing a lousy job because they're trying to retain the support of their Democratic base while essentially governing as Republicans. As were their predecessors, Obama and his minions are lackeys for the corporate plutocrats who have made this country their private piggy bank. You can't very well speak in soaring generalities about "hope" and "change" while continuing the expansion of the domestic military/corporate/police state and the terror wars abroad, expenditures for which are a squandering of our collective treasure, hastening our ultimate and inevitable Soviet-styled collapse.

Obama is a slicker, a used car salesman, selling the same old shit with rhetoric that is increasingly obviously hollow and insincere.

(It was obvious even before his election, but enough people were so desperate to obliterate every vestige and memory and stink of the disastrous Bush administration that they convinced themselves the "lesser evil" was not just actually "lesser" but that it was even a sterling "good." Nope...it wasn't.)

Obama is a slicker, a used car salesman, selling the same old shit with rhetoric that is increasingly obviously hollow and insincereAt last, a cogent thought embedded in Robert Cook's usual Maoist rant.